[Xmca-l] Re: language and music

Sun Dec 2 16:53:46 PST 2018

Andy,

My short response would depend on whether you'd prefer to be critical or
charitable toward linguistic anthropologists.

The critical approach would say that with a few exceptions (e.g., Elinor
Ochs, Paul Kockelman, Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are
right.

The charitable approach would say that linguistic anthropologists are in
fact dealing with precisely the things that you are talking about. Most of
the ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the least. Most of them
are grappling with issues of practice, not just studying formal structures
that exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that exactly?). In
fact, one of the greatest insults to the linguistic anthropologists that I
know is to call them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere
documenter of language variation across the globe. Most of the ones I know
are in fact very mindful of understanding the practical consequences of
semiotic forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes precisely the
point that you are making through his deployment of Peirce to Critique
Saussure. Peirce offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived practice
rather than one that exists only in the "mind" (as Saussure's approach to
semiotics would suggest).

The critical approach is nice because you can just dispense with linguistic
anthropology and all their gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable
approach might suggest that we should at least acknowledge their project.
That's all I was hoping to do. I figured that there might be a few who are
interested, but most on the listserve will find that it wasn't worth
investing the time - and I don't blame them! (as someone in this goofy
world of academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that learning the
language of an entirely new system is a major time commitment and only
worth it in rare cases).

I think things get a bit more complicated when we get to the issue of the
semiosis of non-human agents that you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo
Kohn's book How Forests Think). I understand that you are very much a
humanist and don't like this approach for some very fundamental reasons.
I'm not entirely committed to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the
best person to make the case for this position - unless you are really
genuinely interested. And besides, I'm already well beyond your one screen
rule!

Cheers,
greg

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:

> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg: "most of the
> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest
> in talking about such things as psychological functioning" and therefore,
> it seems to me, little interest in what people do as well as what they
> think. In other words, the turn to seeing language as a system of Peircean
> signs is an entirely *formal* project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or
> the babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally analysed with the same
> set of concepts as the babbling of a group of humans in conversation. But
> this is purely formal, superficial and obscures what is expressed and
> transacted in the human babble.
>
> I can understand the fascination in such formal disciplines, I accept that
> Peircean Semiotics can be a tool of analysis, and often insights come out
> from such formal disciplines relevant to the real world (mathematics being
> the supreme example), but ....! One really has to keep in mind that words
> are not Peircean signs. To answer the question of how it is that humans
> alone have language by saying that everything has language, even inanimate
> processes (and this is how I interpret the equation of language with
> Peircean signs), is somewhat more than missing the point.
>
> As an example of how such formal processes lead to grave errors is the
> Language Acquisition Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal analysis
> of language. And yet to hold that an actual biological, neuronal formation
> as a LAD exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent with the
> foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian evolution. Either Darwin or
> Chomsky, but not both. Which tells me that there is a problem with this
> formal analysis, even though I gasp in wonder every time Google manages to
> correctly parse an ordinary language question I ask it and deliver very
> relevant answers.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
>
> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this group for precisely the
> reasons Helena mentioned previously (the proliferation of technical
> languages in different fields and the time-intensive labor of translating
> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking from one of these fields to
> the next). Add the fact that there are few who have much interest in one of
> the field of linguistic anthropology (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up
> Peicean semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right), and this means the
> following post will likely remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's
> ill intentions but simply because this is an impossible situation for
> anyone to commit to learning an entirely new language for talking about
> language!).]
>
> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you would point to (!) the
> indexical and iconic potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that this
> flattens the oft-made distinction between gesture and the spoken word? Our
> dominant ideology of language tends to assume that spoken language is
> (only?) symbolic and gesture is only indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion
> of indexical and iconic functions offers us a way into seeing how spoken
> language is also indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who dismissed
> them out of hand - e.g., in the Course he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic)
> and "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his project).
>
> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was one of the first to point to
> the problem of this dominant ideology of language, and Michael Silverstein
> has made a rather substantial career off of this simple point, first
> elaborated in his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since then in
> numerous other works. Many others working in linguistic anthropology have
> spent the last 40 years expanding on this project by exploring the
> indexical and iconic nature of spoken language in the concepts of
> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently linguistic anthropologists
> have considered the processes by which sign-functions can shift from one
> function to another - e.g., rhematization - from indexical or symbolic to
> iconic (see Susan Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization - from
> symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb Keane's and Chris Ball's work).
> And others have looked at more basic features of sign-functioning such as
> the realization of qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness' special
> issue in Anthro theory).
>
> The relevance of all this for the present list serve is that the processes
> being described by these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental to
> understanding human psychological functioning and yet most of the
> anthropologists I know, linguistic or otherwise, don't have much interest
> in talking about such things as psychological functioning (one exception
> here is Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent, Subject, Self -
> although beware that his writing is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I
> suspect that this could be a particularly productive intersection for
> development.
>
> Cheers,
> -greg
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Right on, James!
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I discussion to be exploratory and free
>> style, allowing for the coexistence of subjectness and subjectless. When it
>> comes to scholarly writing, we know we will switch the code.
>>
>> James
>>
>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> 于 2018年11月29日周四 18:58写道：
>>
>>> James,
>>> This conversation has been so satisfying I don’t want to let go of it,
>>> so I hope I am not tiring you or others with all the connections I find.
>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo’s post, I’ll just keep on talking and remark
>>> on how the duck tail hair cut is a rich gesture, an important concept in
>>> this subject line. Gesture is an aspect of communication present in many
>>> species. Hence, the importance of gesture as a rudimentary form of language
>>> with evolutionary results in human language. Maybe this is a reach, but I
>>> see the business of quotes in the subject line now taking place (Anna
>>> Stetsenko and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, contributing right now) on the
>>> last chapter of Vygotsky’s Speech and Language as an issue of gesture.
>>> Language, written language in this case, is limited in its ability to
>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes “gestured”, pointed to to author
>>> sources familar in the day that Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were not
>>> necessary. Dan Slobin, psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote that two
>>> charges of language where in “tension”: 1) make yourself clear and 2) get
>>> it said before losing the thread of thinking and talking. Gesture, I would
>>> like to argue, is an aspect of discourse that helps to address this
>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a gesture, with temporal constraints that
>>> belie the idea that a single turn can ever be totally clear in and of
>>> itself. Writing, as we are doing now, is always dialogic, even a whole
>>> book, is a turn in discourse. And we keep on posting our turns.
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for this subject line!
>>>
>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous. Funnily enough, it is what my
>>> brother would always like his 9-year-old son to have because he has much
>>> thicker hair than most boys. Unfortunately last year the boy had
>>> a one-day show off in the classroom and was ticked off by the
>>> school authority (in China). However, my brother has managed to
>>> restore the ducktail twice a year during the boy's long school holiday in
>>> winter and summer!
>>>
>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation are predictable due to
>>> participants' intersubjective awareness of the subject. Yet, the nuances of
>>> conversation (just like each individual's ducktail unique to himself) are
>>> unpredictable because of the waywardness of our mind. What's more,
>>> such nuances create the fluidity of conversation which makes it difficult
>>> (or even unnecessary) to predict what comes next - this is perhaps the
>>> whole point that keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed out earlier.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Back at you, James. The images of the mandarin drake reminded me of a
>>>> hair style popularin the late 50s when I was in high school (grades 9-12): ducktail
>>>> haircuts images
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ducktail+haircuts+images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
>>>> One of the photos in the link is of Elvis Presley, an alpha male high
>>>> school boys sought to emulate. Note that some of the photos are of women,
>>>> interesting in light of issues of gender fluidity these days. I don’t
>>>> remember when women started taking on the hair style. Since I mentioned
>>>> Elvis Presley, this post counts as relevant to the subject line! Ha!
>>>> Henry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Henry.
>>>> More on mandarin duck, just thought you might like to see:
>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck
>>>>
>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> 于 2018年11月27日周二 19:30写道：
>>>>
>>>>> What a beautiful photo, James, and providing it is a move on this
>>>>> subject line that instantiates nicely Gee’s conception of discourse. Thanks
>>>>> for your thoughtful and helpful response.
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info on Derek Bickerton. One of the interesting
>>>>> things is his conception of displacement as the hallmark of language,
>>>>> whether iconic, indexical or symbolic. In the case of Chinese
>>>>> language, the sounds are decontextualised or sublimated over time to
>>>>> become something more integrated into the words themselves as ideographs.
>>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas are suggestive of the study of protolanguage
>>>>> as an *a priori *process, involving scrupulous deduction. This
>>>>> reminds me of methods used in diachronic linguistics, which I felt are
>>>>> relevant to CHAT just as much as those used in synchronic linguistics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and "intramental", I can see your point. In
>>>>> fact I don't take Vygotsky's "interpsychological" and "intrapsychological"
>>>>> categories to be dichotomies or binary opposites. Whenever it comes to
>>>>> their relationship, I tend to have a post-structuralism imagery present in
>>>>> my mind, particularly related to a Derridean stance for the conception of
>>>>> ideas (i.e. any idea is not entirely distinct from other ideas in
>>>>> terms of the "thing itself"; rather, it entails a supplement of the other
>>>>> idea which is already embedded in the self). Vygotsky's two categories
>>>>> are relational (dialectical); they are somehow like a pair of mandarin
>>>>> ducks (see attached image). I also like to think that each of these
>>>>> categories is both "discourse-in-context" and "context-for-discourse" (here
>>>>> discourse is in tune with James Gee's conception of discourse as a
>>>>> patchwork of actions, interactions, thoughts, feelings etc). I recall
>>>>> Barbara Rogoff talking about there being no boundary between the external
>>>>> and the internal or the boundary being blurred (during her seminar in the
>>>>> Graduate School of Education at Bristol in 2001 while I was doing my PhD).
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 23:14, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> James,
>>>>>> I think it was Derek Bickerton (
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton) who argued that
>>>>>> “formal syntax” developed from stringing together turns in verbal
>>>>>> interaction. The wiki on Bickerton I have linked is short and raises issues
>>>>>> discussed in this subject line and in the subject line on Corballis.
>>>>>> Bickerton brings me back to the circularity of discourse and the
>>>>>> development of discourse competence. Usage-based grammar. Bickerton’s idea
>>>>>> that complex grammar developed out of the pidgins of our ancestors is
>>>>>> interesting. Do I see a chicken/egg problem that for Vygotsky, “…the
>>>>>> intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better understood by examining
>>>>>> the types of intermental processes”? I don’t know. Could one say that inner
>>>>>> speech is the vehicle for turning discourse into grammar? Bickerton claimed
>>>>>> a strong biological component to human language, though I don’t remember if
>>>>>> he was a Chomskian. I hope this is coherent thinking in the context of our
>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz.
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at 3:22 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with Greg - intersubjectivity is relevant and
>>>>>> pertinent here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I see it, intersubjectivity transcends "outlines" or perhaps
>>>>>> sublimates the "muddledness" and "unpredictability" of a conversation (as
>>>>>> in Bateson's metalogue) into what Rommetveit termed the "draft of a
>>>>>> contract". This is because shared understanding makes explicit and external
>>>>>> what would otherwise remain implicit and internal. Rommetveit argues
>>>>>> that private worlds can only be transcended up to a certain level and
>>>>>> interlocutors need to agree upon the draft of a contract with which the
>>>>>> communication can be initiated. In the spirit of Vygotsky, he uses a
>>>>>> "pluralistic" and "social-cognitive" approach to human communication - and
>>>>>> especially to the problem of linguistic mediation and regulation in
>>>>>> interpsychological functioning, with reference to semantics, syntactics and
>>>>>> pragmatics. For him, the intramental forms of semiotic mediation is better
>>>>>> understood by examining the types of intermental processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think these intermental processes (just like intramental ones) can
>>>>>> be boiled down or distilled to signs and symbols with which interlocutors
>>>>>> are in harmony during a conversation or any other joint activities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *________________________________________________*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *James Ma  Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 08:09, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henry's remarks about no directors and symphonic potential of
>>>>>>> conversation reminded me of G. Bateson's metalogue "why do things have
>>>>>>> outlines" (attached). Implicitly, it raises the question of units and
>>>>>>> elements, of how a song, a dance, a poem, a conversation, to make sense,
>>>>>>> they must have a recognizable outline, even in improvisation; they must be
>>>>>>> wholes, or suggest wholes. That makes them "predictable". And yet, when you
>>>>>>> are immersed in a conversation, the fact that you can never exactly predict
>>>>>>> what comes next is the whole point that keep us talking, dancing, drawing,
>>>>>>> etc!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of HENRY SHONERD <
>>>>>>> hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November 2018 06:22
>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: language and music
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’d like to add to the call and response conversation that
>>>>>>> discourse, this conversation itself, is staged. There are performers and
>>>>>>> and an audience made up partly of performers themselves. How many are
>>>>>>> lurkers, as I am usually? This conversation has no director, but there are
>>>>>>> leaders. There is symphonic potential. And even gestural potential, making
>>>>>>> the chat a dance. All on line.:)
>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:05 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For many years I used the work of Ellen Dissenyake to teach comm
>>>>>>> classes about language/music/development. She is quite unusual in ways that
>>>>>>> might find interest here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 2:16 PM James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In semiotic terms, whatever each of the participants has
>>>>>>>> constructed internally is the signified, i.e. his or her understanding and
>>>>>>>> interpretation. When it is vocalised (spoken out), it becomes the signifier
>>>>>>>> to the listener. What's more, when the participants work together to
>>>>>>>> compose a story impromptu, each of their signifiers turns into a new
>>>>>>>> signified – a shared, newly-established understanding, woven into the
>>>>>>>> fabric of meaning making.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By the way, in Chinese language, words for singing and dancing have
>>>>>>>> long been used inseparably. As I see it, they are semiotically indexed to,
>>>>>>>> or adjusted to allow for, the feelings, emotions, actions and interactions
>>>>>>>> of a consciousness who is experiencing the singing and dancing. Here are
>>>>>>>> some idioms:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 酣歌醉舞 - singing and dancing rapturously
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 村歌社舞 - dancing village and singing club
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 燕歌赵舞 - citizens of ancient Yan and Zhao good at singing and
>>>>>>>> dancing, hence referring to wonderful songs and dances
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 舞榭歌楼 - a church or building set up for singing and dancing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *________________________________________________*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *James Ma  Independent Scholar **https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 19:08, Simangele Mayisela <
>>>>>>>> simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This conversation is getting even more interesting, not that I
>>>>>>>>> have an informed answer for you Rob, I can only think of the National
>>>>>>>>> Anthems where people stand still when singing, even then this is observed
>>>>>>>>> only in international events.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other occasions when people are likely not to move when singing
>>>>>>>>> when there is death and the mood is sombre. Otherwise singing and rhythmic
>>>>>>>>> body movement, called dance are a norm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This then makes me  wonder what this means in terms of cognitive
>>>>>>>>> functioning, in the light of Vygotsky’s developmental stages – of language
>>>>>>>>> and thought. Would the body movement constitute the externalisation of the
>>>>>>>>> thoughts contained in the music?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helena – the video you are relating about reminds of the language
>>>>>>>>> teaching or group therapy technique- where a group of learners (or
>>>>>>>>> participants in OD settings) are instructed to tell a single coherent and
>>>>>>>>> logical story as a group. They all take turns to say a sentence, a sentence
>>>>>>>>> of not more than 6 words (depending on the instructor ), each time linking
>>>>>>>>> your sentence to the sentence of previous articulator, with the next person
>>>>>>>>> also doing the same, until the story sounds complete with conclusion. More
>>>>>>>>> important is that they compose this story impromptu, It with such stories
>>>>>>>>> that group dynamics are analysed, and in group therapy cases, collective
>>>>>>>>> experiences of trauma are shared.  I suppose this is an example of
>>>>>>>>> cooperative activity, although previously I would have thought of it as
>>>>>>>>> just an “activity”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simangele
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] *On Behalf Of *
>>>>>>>>> robsub@ariadne.org.uk
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, 16 November 2018 21:01
>>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>;
>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember being told once that many languages do not have
>>>>>>>>> separate words for singing and dancing, because if you sing you want to
>>>>>>>>> move - until western civilisation beats it out of you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does anybody know if this is actually true, or is it complete cod?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it is true, does it have something to say about the
>>>>>>>>> relationship between the physical body and the development of speech?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 17:29, Helena Worthen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am very interested in where this conversation is going. I
>>>>>>>>> remember being in a Theories of Literacy class in which Glynda Hull, the
>>>>>>>>> instructor, showed a video of a singing circle somewhere in the Amazon,
>>>>>>>>> where an incredibly complicated pattern of musical phrases wove in and out
>>>>>>>>> among the singers underlaid by drumming that included turn-taking, call and
>>>>>>>>> response, you name it. Maybe 20 people were involved, all pushing full
>>>>>>>>> steam ahead to create something together that they all seemed to know about
>>>>>>>>> but wouldn’t happen until they did it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly someone has studied the relationship of musical
>>>>>>>>> communication (improvised or otherwise), speech and gesture? I have asked
>>>>>>>>> musicians about this and get blank looks. Yet clearly you can tell when you
>>>>>>>>> listen to different kinds of music, not just Amazon drum and chant circles,
>>>>>>>>> that there is some kind of speech - like potential embedded there. The
>>>>>>>>> Sonata form is clearly involves exposition (they even use that word).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example: the soundtrack to the Coen Brothers’ film Fargo opens
>>>>>>>>> with a musical theme that says, as clearly as if we were reading aloud from
>>>>>>>>> some children’s book, “I am now going to tell you a very strange story that
>>>>>>>>> sounds impossible but I promise you every word of it is
>>>>>>>>> true…da-de-da-de-da.’ Only it doesn’t take that many words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (18) Fargo (1996) - 'Fargo, North Dakota' (Opening) scene [1080] -
>>>>>>>>> YouTube
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helena Worthen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:56 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy and Peter,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I like the turn taking principle a lot. It links language and
>>>>>>>>> music very nicely: call and response. By voice and ear. While gesture is
>>>>>>>>> linked to visual art. In face-to-face conversation there is this
>>>>>>>>> rhythmically entrained interaction. It’s not just cooperative, it’s
>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural art. Any human work is potentially a work of art. Vera
>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner and Holbrook Mahn have talked about how conversation can be a
>>>>>>>>> co-construction “at the speed of thought”.  Heady stuff taking part, or
>>>>>>>>> just listening to, this call and response between smart people.  And
>>>>>>>>> disheartening and destructive when we give up on dialog.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I write this, I realize that the prosodic aspects of spoken
>>>>>>>>> language (intonation) are gestural as well. It’s simplistic to restrict
>>>>>>>>> gesture to visual signals. But I would say gesture is prototypically
>>>>>>>>> visual, an accompaniment to the voice. In surfing the web, one can find
>>>>>>>>> some interesting things on paralanguage which complicate the distinction
>>>>>>>>> between language and gesture. I think it speaks to the embodiment of
>>>>>>>>> language in the senses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] <
>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. And thanks for introducing me to the notion
>>>>>>>>> of delayed gratification as a precondition for sharing and turn-taking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a feature I hadn't considered before in connection with
>>>>>>>>> speech communication. It makes sense that each participant would need
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to exercise patience in order to wait out someone else's turn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much obliged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 8:50 AM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corballis, oddly in my view, places a lot of weight in so-called
>>>>>>>>> mirror neurons to explain perception of the intentionality of others. It
>>>>>>>>> seems blindingly obvious to me that cooperative activity, specifically
>>>>>>>>> participating in projects in which individuals share a common not-present
>>>>>>>>> object, is a form of behaviour which begets the necessary perceptive
>>>>>>>>> abilities. I have also long been of the view that delayed gratification, as
>>>>>>>>> a precondition for sharing and turn-taking, as a matter of fact, is an
>>>>>>>>> important aspect of sociality fostering the development of speech, and the
>>>>>>>>> upright gait which frees the hands for carrying food back to camp where it
>>>>>>>>> can be shared is important. None of which presupposes tools, only
>>>>>>>>> cooperation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=itd0qPWlE7uAuyEX0ii8ohEoZegfdMAOOLf-YoaEqqs&s=-uwTjZDhHtJM2EFdBS-rXLTptADQdSGAcibaav-mhJw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17/11/2018 12:36 am, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I might chime in to this discussion:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I submit that the key cooperative activity underlying speech
>>>>>>>>> communication is *turn-taking*. I don't know how that activity or rule came
>>>>>>>>> into being,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but once it did, the activity of *exchanging* utterances became
>>>>>>>>> possible. And with exchange came the complementarity of speaking and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> listening roles, and the activity of alternating conversational
>>>>>>>>> roles and mental perspectives. Turn-taking is a key process in human
>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:21 PM Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oddly, Amazon delivered the book to me yesterday and I am
>>>>>>>>> currently on p.5. Fortunately, Corballis provides a synopsis of his book at
>>>>>>>>> the end, which I sneak-previewed last night.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The interesting thing to me is his claim, similar to that of
>>>>>>>>> Merlin Donald, which goes like this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be absurd to suggest that proto-humans discovered that
>>>>>>>>> they had this unique and wonderful vocal apparatus and decided to use it
>>>>>>>>> for speech. Clearly* there was rudimentary language before speech
>>>>>>>>> was humanly possible*. In development, a behaviour is always
>>>>>>>>> present before the physiological adaptations which facilitate it come into
>>>>>>>>> being. I.e, proto-humans found themselves in circumstances where it made
>>>>>>>>> sense to develop interpersonal, voluntary communication, and to begin with
>>>>>>>>> they used what they had - the ability to mime and gesture, make facial
>>>>>>>>> expressions and vocalisations (all of which BTW can reference non-present
>>>>>>>>> entities and situations) This is an activity which further produces the
>>>>>>>>> conditions for its own development. Eventually, over millions of years, the
>>>>>>>>> vocal apparatus evolved under strong selection pressure due to the practice
>>>>>>>>> of non-speech communication as an integral part of their evolutionary
>>>>>>>>> niche. In other words, rudimentary wordless speech gradually
>>>>>>>>> became modern speech, along with all the accompanying facial expressions
>>>>>>>>> and hand movements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It just seems to me that, as you suggest, collective activity must
>>>>>>>>> have been a part of those conditions fostering communication (something
>>>>>>>>> found in our nearest evolutionary cousins who also have the elements of
>>>>>>>>> rudimentary speech)  - as was increasing tool-using, tool-making,
>>>>>>>>> tool-giving and tool-instructing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=A3k5oeQ13zGCPUbWibdOb2KNZT4q__fLyCwugyULUDw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16/11/2018 12:58 pm, Arturo Escandon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Andy,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael Tomasello has made similar claims, grounding the surge of
>>>>>>>>> articulated language on innate co-operativism and collective activity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cambridge.org_core_books_cambridge-2Dhandbook-2Dof-2Dchild-2Dlanguage_90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=vxJZooXRDYwTRrM4dzWBbLfUhF9HhmUvU3ouq6sbwPI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fordham University
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office of Institutional Research
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fordham University
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thebaud Hall-202
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bronx, NY 10458
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phone: (718) 817-2243
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fax: (718) 817-3817
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is
>>>>>>>>> confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please
>>>>>>>>> notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or
>>>>>>>>> disseminate this communication without the permission of the University.
>>>>>>>>> Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on
>>>>>>>>> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content
>>>>>>>>> of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may
>>>>>>>>> contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not
>>>>>>>>> necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand,
>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are
>>>>>>>>> subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the
>>>>>>>>> contrary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Mandarin Ducks.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>

-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181202/e80bb6a0/attachment-0001.html 